10 ms·

I find the edit video with text the most fascinating aspect. I can see this being used for indie films that doesn’t have a CGI budget. Like the scene with the m

I find the edit video with text the most fascinating aspect. I can see this being used for indie films that doesn’t have a CGI budget. Like the scene with the movie theater, you can film them on lounge chairs first and then edit it to seem like a movie theater.

ForHackernews 2y ago
Why bother? Actors cost money and scheduling is difficult. Do the whole thing in AI - the model will be trained on better actors than your indie cast, anyway.
- M4v3R 2y ago
  It will be a loong time before AI can produce lead actors that are believable, act exactly the way you as a director want and tell the story you want to tell, so I think at least for now you'll still need the actors for the lead roles. But I can totally this being used for generating people/stuff in the background of certain shots in a low budget movie.
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    Isn't that a core problem now. Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem. But this limits promotion where actors do interviews and sell the movie to the public. It also limits an actor doing something crazy that tanks a movie like a tweet.
    - l33tbro 2y ago
      The answer is that it depends on the director. For David Fincher or the Coen brothers, having this level of exactitude and precision is what their craft is all about. But for plenty of other masters - think Cassavetes, Mike Leigh, even PTA - the actor's outstanding talent and instincts bring something to the script and vision that is outside of their prescriptive powers. Their focus is essentially setting up a framework for magic to happen inside of.
    - squarefoot 2y ago
      > Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem. Also, some great lines in movies came from actors ad libs. I hope there will always be some space for mild hallucination; without improvisation we wouldn't even have jazz.
      - mrandish 2y ago
        Yep. Including one of the best moments in one of the most influential sci-fi films of all time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue
      - lloeki 2y ago
        "I know." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harrison-ford-i-know/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harrison-ford-i-know/
    - lagadu 2y ago
      > Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem. As a choreographer myself, that's not necessarily a problem but rather a feature: it depends on how the director creates. Often you want what's unique to the performer, you don't want them to do something that's exactly like what you envisioned but whatever their interpretation/vision of it is, the "imperfectness" is what makes it interesting and rich.
  - noch 2y ago
    > It will be a loong time before AI can produce lead actors that are believable. A "loong time" will be sooner that most of us think. The way this is done currently is similar to motion capture except that the tools are gradually becoming democratized: A single actor can act all the roles you need (You could even act the scenes and roles yourself). That footage is then fed into a model that generates an actor with the appearance and voice that you desire. As a random on the internet, my prediction is that within a year, you'll be able to produce lead actors that are believable using movie generation plus smartphone footage of yourself acting the scene. Initially it will be expensive to make a feature length film. But from 2025 onward, the cost will come down as the tools improve. These will be a different type of movie for sure, but every advancement in film technology has always led to films that seem strange compared to what came before.
    - XorNot 2y ago
      You're getting downvoted, but I agree with you except for your timeline. This won't be possible in a year. What's here is a concept demo, but the gulf between "that's neat" and "you can make a decent 10 minute short film" is pretty vast.
      - noch 2y ago
        > But the gulf between "that's neat" and "you can make a decent 10 minute short film" is pretty vast. Agreed. I expect the tools I described to be prohibitively expensive for the average person for some time. By the end of 2025, probably only well-funded studios will be able to use such tools and probably not economically. But I'd be quite surprised if Hollywood studios/publishers aren't using their immense back catalogue to train private models right now. I don't think they'll ever allow royalty-free movie generation tools to be used that were trained on their catalogues. So perhaps there'll be a cottage industry of stock footage by amateur and professional actors for training/augmenting the movie generation models and tools that will be available for general use, royalty free. Or perhaps these tools will simply emerge as just another TikTok filter and we'll see goofy couples who filmed a skit in their living room presented as gladiators arguing on the surface of Mars while their dog runs back and forth between them unable to choose a favourite.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    "long time" in LLM land = 2 years tops
    - gloflo 2y ago
      Anything is possible at zombo.com
    - mikae1 2y ago
      Seems you drank way too much of the Altman cool aid. :-D How has LLMs actually developed in the last two years? Have you noticed movies and TV series use multiple cameras to capture a scene from different angles? When it comes to video these things can't get consistency between angles or scenes. Add to that that the results are full of glitches and the resolution is equivalent to a CRT screen in the year 2000. Same resolution as s Fixing these limitations would equate to a revolution rather than a steady evolution. And let's not forget that these systems are also hugely unprofitable at this stage.
- zappchance 2y ago
  Consistentency between scenes is one possible reason.
gen3 2y ago
100% agree, the background replace that puts the guy into a stadium would be fully usable as a cut in a movie/tv show, and the background is believable enough that no one would bat an eye. If you use it properly, I expect a quality uplift on indie films/shorts. Your limit is your creativity
- redundantly 2y ago
  > Your limit is your creativity And how many tokens you can afford.
  - gen3 2y ago
    You’re not wrong, but the comment somewhat misses the point. A shot like that would require you to rent a stadium (generally not cheap) along with paying for a believable number of extras. That would put the shot out of budget for most indie filmmakers. Spending $20 on tokens to get “good enough” is totally worth it, and allows you to get shots that were previously out of reach.
- mrandish 2y ago
  > Your limit is your creativity In the professional creative tools business, "Now the only limit is your creativity" has been a popular marketing tagline for decades, especially for products based on new enabling technologies. It's common enough that a wry corollary has developed in response, which goes: "Unfortunately, for a lot of people that's a pretty big limit."
- jeltz 2y ago
  I personally expect a decrease in quality. Without limits people tend to get less creative. Sure, there is some balance here in that tools also enable new things to be done which are not possible without tools but working around limits has often inspired some of the most creative works.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    And without being forced to interact with other people. The movie made by one creative and 100 automatons does not ai all compare to the one where there are multiple brilliant creatives butting heads and personalities and choosing never to work with each other again but the show must go on. How many movie lines have been adlibbed but are absolute classics? Sonofabitch, he stole my line!
ErigmolCt 2y ago
In some ways it opens up creative possibilities

ForHackernews 2y ago

Why bother? Actors cost money and scheduling is difficult. Do the whole thing in AI - the model will be trained on better actors than your indie cast, anyway.

M4v3R 2y ago
It will be a loong time before AI can produce lead actors that are believable, act exactly the way you as a director want and tell the story you want to tell, so I think at least for now you'll still need the actors for the lead roles. But I can totally this being used for generating people/stuff in the background of certain shots in a low budget movie.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Isn't that a core problem now. Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem. But this limits promotion where actors do interviews and sell the movie to the public. It also limits an actor doing something crazy that tanks a movie like a tweet.
  - l33tbro 2y ago
    The answer is that it depends on the director. For David Fincher or the Coen brothers, having this level of exactitude and precision is what their craft is all about. But for plenty of other masters - think Cassavetes, Mike Leigh, even PTA - the actor's outstanding talent and instincts bring something to the script and vision that is outside of their prescriptive powers. Their focus is essentially setting up a framework for magic to happen inside of.
  - squarefoot 2y ago
    > Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem. Also, some great lines in movies came from actors ad libs. I hope there will always be some space for mild hallucination; without improvisation we wouldn't even have jazz.
    - mrandish 2y ago
      Yep. Including one of the best moments in one of the most influential sci-fi films of all time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue
    - lloeki 2y ago
      "I know." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harrison-ford-i-know/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harrison-ford-i-know/
  - lagadu 2y ago
    > Getting actors to act exactly how you want was never a solved problem. As a choreographer myself, that's not necessarily a problem but rather a feature: it depends on how the director creates. Often you want what's unique to the performer, you don't want them to do something that's exactly like what you envisioned but whatever their interpretation/vision of it is, the "imperfectness" is what makes it interesting and rich.
- noch 2y ago
  > It will be a loong time before AI can produce lead actors that are believable. A "loong time" will be sooner that most of us think. The way this is done currently is similar to motion capture except that the tools are gradually becoming democratized: A single actor can act all the roles you need (You could even act the scenes and roles yourself). That footage is then fed into a model that generates an actor with the appearance and voice that you desire. As a random on the internet, my prediction is that within a year, you'll be able to produce lead actors that are believable using movie generation plus smartphone footage of yourself acting the scene. Initially it will be expensive to make a feature length film. But from 2025 onward, the cost will come down as the tools improve. These will be a different type of movie for sure, but every advancement in film technology has always led to films that seem strange compared to what came before.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    You're getting downvoted, but I agree with you except for your timeline. This won't be possible in a year. What's here is a concept demo, but the gulf between "that's neat" and "you can make a decent 10 minute short film" is pretty vast.
    - noch 2y ago
      > But the gulf between "that's neat" and "you can make a decent 10 minute short film" is pretty vast. Agreed. I expect the tools I described to be prohibitively expensive for the average person for some time. By the end of 2025, probably only well-funded studios will be able to use such tools and probably not economically. But I'd be quite surprised if Hollywood studios/publishers aren't using their immense back catalogue to train private models right now. I don't think they'll ever allow royalty-free movie generation tools to be used that were trained on their catalogues. So perhaps there'll be a cottage industry of stock footage by amateur and professional actors for training/augmenting the movie generation models and tools that will be available for general use, royalty free. Or perhaps these tools will simply emerge as just another TikTok filter and we'll see goofy couples who filmed a skit in their living room presented as gladiators arguing on the surface of Mars while their dog runs back and forth between them unable to choose a favourite.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  "long time" in LLM land = 2 years tops
  - gloflo 2y ago
    Anything is possible at zombo.com
  - mikae1 2y ago
    Seems you drank way too much of the Altman cool aid. :-D How has LLMs actually developed in the last two years? Have you noticed movies and TV series use multiple cameras to capture a scene from different angles? When it comes to video these things can't get consistency between angles or scenes. Add to that that the results are full of glitches and the resolution is equivalent to a CRT screen in the year 2000. Same resolution as s Fixing these limitations would equate to a revolution rather than a steady evolution. And let's not forget that these systems are also hugely unprofitable at this stage.
zappchance 2y ago
Consistentency between scenes is one possible reason.

gen3 2y ago

100% agree, the background replace that puts the guy into a stadium would be fully usable as a cut in a movie/tv show, and the background is believable enough that no one would bat an eye. If you use it properly, I expect a quality uplift on indie films/shorts. Your limit is your creativity

redundantly 2y ago
> Your limit is your creativity And how many tokens you can afford.
- gen3 2y ago
  You’re not wrong, but the comment somewhat misses the point. A shot like that would require you to rent a stadium (generally not cheap) along with paying for a believable number of extras. That would put the shot out of budget for most indie filmmakers. Spending $20 on tokens to get “good enough” is totally worth it, and allows you to get shots that were previously out of reach.
mrandish 2y ago
> Your limit is your creativity In the professional creative tools business, "Now the only limit is your creativity" has been a popular marketing tagline for decades, especially for products based on new enabling technologies. It's common enough that a wry corollary has developed in response, which goes: "Unfortunately, for a lot of people that's a pretty big limit."
jeltz 2y ago
I personally expect a decrease in quality. Without limits people tend to get less creative. Sure, there is some balance here in that tools also enable new things to be done which are not possible without tools but working around limits has often inspired some of the most creative works.
- fragmede 2y ago
  And without being forced to interact with other people. The movie made by one creative and 100 automatons does not ai all compare to the one where there are multiple brilliant creatives butting heads and personalities and choosing never to work with each other again but the show must go on. How many movie lines have been adlibbed but are absolute classics? Sonofabitch, he stole my line!

ErigmolCt 2y ago

In some ways it opens up creative possibilities